Enhanced antimicrobial stewardship based on rapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing for bacteraemia in patients with haematological malignancies: a randomized controlled trial

Clinical impact and cost-consequence analysis of ePlex® blood culture identification panels for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections: a single-center randomized controlled trial

To assess clinical impact and perform cost-consequence analysis of the broadest multiplex PCR panels available for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections (BSI). Single-center, randomized controlled trial conducted from June 2019 to February 2021 at a French University hospital with an institutional antimicrobial stewardship program. Primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with optimized antimicrobial treatment 12 h after transmission of positivity and Gram stain results from the first positive BC. This percentage was significantly higher in the multiplex PCR (mPCR) group (90/105 = 85.7% %, CI95% [77.5 ; 91.8] vs. 68/107 = 63.6%, CI95% [53.7 ; 72.6]; p < 10- 3) at interim analysis, resulting in the early termination of the study after the inclusion of 309 patients. For patients not optimized at baseline, the median time to obtain an optimized therapy was much shorter in the mPCR group than in the control group (6.9 h, IQR [2.9; 17.8] vs. 26.4 h, IQR [3.4; 47.5]; p = 0.001). Early optimization of antibiotic therapy resulted in a non-statistically significant decrease in mortality from 12.4 to 8.8% (p = 0.306), with a trend towards a shorter median length of stay (18 vs. 20 days; p = 0.064) and a non-significant reduction in the average cost per patient of €3,065 (p = 0.15). mPCR identified all the bacteria present in 88% of the samples. Despite its higher laboratory cost, the use of multiplex PCR for BSI diagnosis leads to early-optimised therapy, seems cost-effective and could reduce mortality and length of stay. Their impact could probably be improved if implemented 24/7.

Effect of rapid cefpodoxime disk screening for early detection of third-generation cephalosporin resistance in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia

BACKGROUND

Several methods have been reported for detecting resistance genes or phenotypic testing on the day of positive blood culture in Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia. However, some facilities have not introduced these methods because of costs or other reasons. Toyota Kosei Hospital introduced cefpodoxime (CPDX) rapid screening on May 7, 2018, to enable early detection of third-generation cephalosporin resistance. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of intervention with an Antimicrobial Stewardship Team using CPDX rapid screening.

METHODS

Cefotaxime (CTX)-resistant E. coli or K. pneumoniae bacteremia cases were selected retrospectively and divided into two groups: the pre-CPDX screening (June 1, 2015, to May 6, 2018) and CPDX screening groups (July 7, 2018, to August 31, 2021). The primary outcome was the proportion of cases in which modifications were made to the administration of susceptible antimicrobial agents within 24 h of blood culture-positive reports.

RESULTS

Overall, 63 patients in the pre-CPDX screening group and 84 patients in the CPDX screening group were eligible for analysis. The proportion of patients who modified to susceptible antimicrobial agents within 24 h of blood culture-positive reports was significantly increased in the CPDX screening group compared to that in the pre-CPDX screening group (6.3% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated that in CTX-resistant E. coli or K. pneumoniae bacteremia, CPDX rapid screening increased the proportion of early initiation of appropriate antimicrobial agents.

Impact of the FilmArray Rapid Multiplex PCR Assay on Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Bacteremia

Bacteremia is a serious disease with a reported mortality of 30%. Appropriate antibiotic use with a prompt blood culture can improve patient survival. However, when bacterial identification tests based on conventional biochemical properties are used, it takes 2 to 3 days from positive blood culture conversion to reporting the results, which makes early intervention difficult. Recently, FilmArray (FA) multiplex PCR panel for blood culture identification was introduced to the clinical setting. In this study, we investigated the clinical impact of the FA system on decision making for treating septic diseases and its association with patients' survival. Our hospital introduced the FA multiplex PCR panel in July 2018. In this study, blood-culture-positive cases submitted between January and October 2018 were unbiasedly included, and clinical outcomes before and after the introduction of FA were compared. The outcomes included (i) the duration of use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, (ii) the time until the start of anti-MRSA therapy to MRSA bacteremia, and (iii) sixty-day overall survival. In addition, multivariate analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. In the FA group, overall, 122 (87.8%) microorganisms were concordantly retrieved with the FA identification panel. The duration of ABPC/SBT use and the start-up time of anti-MRSA therapy to MRSA bacteremia were significantly shorter in the FA group. Sixty-day overall survival was significantly improved by utilizing FA compared with the control group. In addition, multivariate analysis identified Pitt score, Charlson score, and utilization of FA as prognostic factors. In conclusion, FA can lead to the prompt bacterial identification of bacteremia and its effective treatment, thus significantly improving survival in patients with bacteremia.

Impact of a laboratory developed phenotypic rapid susceptibility test directly from positive blood cultures on time to narrowest effective therapy in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia: a prospective randomized trial

Background

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is often needed prior to antimicrobial optimization for patients with gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSIs). Rapid AST (rAST) in combination with antimicrobial stewardship (AS) may decrease time to administration of narrower antibiotics.

Methods

This was a prospective, nonblinded, randomized trial evaluating the impact of a phenotypic rAST method vs conventional AST (cAST) in hospitalized patients with GN-BSI and source control. The primary outcome was time to narrowest effective therapy.

Results

Two hundred seventy-four patients were randomized and 205 underwent analysis (97 cAST, 108 rAST). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to susceptibility results was 23 hours shorter in the rAST group (cAST: 62 [59–67] hours vs rAST: 39 [IQR, 35–46] hours; P < .001). Median (IQR) time to narrowest effective therapy was similar between groups (cAST: 73 [44–138] hours vs rAST: 64 [42–92] hours; P = .10). Median (IQR) time to narrowest effective therapy was significantly shorter in a prespecified subgroup of patients not initially on narrowest therapy and during AS working hours (cAST: 93 [56–154] hours vs rAST: 62 [43–164] hours; P = .004). Significant decreases were observed in median (IQR) time to oral therapy (cAST: 126 [76–209] hours vs rAST: 91 [66–154] hours; P = .02) and median (IQR) length of hospital stay (cAST: 7 [4–13] days vs rAST: 5 [4–8] days; P = .04).

Conclusions

In patients with GN-BSI, rAST did not significantly decrease time to narrowest effective therapy but did decrease time to oral antibiotics and length of hospital stay. Rapid AST using existing microbiology platforms has potential to optimize patient outcomes.

Evaluation of droplet digital PCR rapid detection method and precise diagnosis and treatment for suspected sepsis (PROGRESS): a study protocol for a multi-center pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Background

Sepsis is still a major public health concern and a medical emergency due to its high morbidity and mortality. Accurate and timely etiology diagnosis is crucial for sepsis management. As an emerging rapid and sensitive pathogen detection tool, digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) has shown promising potential in rapid identification of pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes. However, the diagnostic value and clinical impact of ddPCR tests remains to be studied in patients with suspected sepsis. PROGRESS trial is aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a novel ddPCR assay compared with standard practice.

Methods

PROGRESS is a multicenter, open-label, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pRCT) set in ten hospitals, including departments of infectious disease and intensive care units. In this study, a total of 2292 patients with suspected sepsis will be randomly assigned to two arms: the ddPCR group and the control group with a ratio of 3:1. The primary outcome is the diagnostic efficacy, that is, the sensitivity and specificity of the ddPCR assay compared with the synchronous blood culture. Secondary outcomes include the mortality rates and the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at follow-up time points, the length of stay in the hospital, the time to directed antimicrobial therapy, duration of broad-spectrum antibiotic use, and the EQ-5D-5L score on day 90.

Discussion

It is the first multicenter pragmatic RCT to explore the diagnostic efficacy and clinical impact of the ddPCR assay in patients with suspected sepsis, taking advantage of both RCT’s ability to establish causality and the feasibility of pragmatic approaches in real-world studies (RWS). This trial will help us to get a comprehensive view of the assay’s capacity for precise diagnosis and treatment of sepsis. It has the potential to monitor the pathogen load change and to guide the antimicrobial therapy, making a beneficial impact on the prognosis of sepsis patients.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT05190861. Registered January 13, 2022—‘Retrospectively registered’, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05190861.

Effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship programmes based on rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing of haematologic patients having high-risk factors for bacteraemia related mortality: A post-hoc analysis of an RCT

OBJECTIVES

A randomised controlled trial showed that rapid phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) with antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASP) increases the proportion of haematologic patients with bacteraemia receiving optimal targeted therapy within 72 hrs of blood culture collection. The present post-hoc analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of rapid phenotypic AST intervention in haematologic patients at high risk of a poor outcome from bacteraemia.

METHODS

Haematologic patients with bacteraemia (n = 116) were assigned randomly to a conventional AST group or a rapid AST group. The two outcome measures were the proportion of patients receiving optimal targeted therapy at 72 hrs post-blood culture collection and the time to optimal targeted therapy; subgroup analysis was conducted based on baseline demographics (age, sex) and prognostic (Charlson comorbidity index, haematologic treatment intensity, Pitt bacteraemia score, appropriateness of empirical antibiotic therapy and multidrug-resistant organism) indicators. The interaction effect between the intervention and subgroup factors was examined using regression model analysis.

RESULTS

Age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, haematologic treatment intensity, Pitt bacteraemia score and appropriateness of empirical antibiotic therapy had no significant interaction effects on the proportion of patients receiving optimal targeted therapy (P = 0.129-0.826). However, infection by a multidrug-resistant organism did have a significant interaction effect (P = 0.042). Regarding time to optimal targeted therapy, there were no significant interaction effects between the intervention and subgroup factors (P = 0.156-0.848).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid phenotypic AST intervention may accelerate early optimal targeted antimicrobial treatment of haematologic patients, even those in high-risk subgroups with bacteraemia.

Impact of rapid susceptibility testing on antimicrobial therapy and clinical outcomes in Gram-negative bloodstream infections

Background

Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (rAST) has the potential to improve care of bloodstream infections.

Objectives

The aim of this service evaluation was to assess the impact of rAST on antimicrobial therapy and clinical outcomes in patients with Gram-negative bloodstream infection.

Methods

A prospective service evaluation was conducted from March 2018 to December 2018. A rAST system (Alfred 60AST) was run Monday–Friday before midday and results were communicated to clinicians on the same day as positive blood culture, with subsequent conventional AST performed. Times to antibiotic therapy and clinical outcomes were compared between rAST and conventional AST.

Results

One hundred and ninety-one patients with Gram-negative bacteraemia were included (93 in the rapid group and 98 in the conventional group). Aminoglycoside combination therapy was stopped earlier in the rapid group [32 h (0–795) versus 54 h (4–216), P = 0.002]. The median time to optimal antibiotic based on AST results was significantly shorter than that in the conventional group [50 h (10–339) versus 69.5 h (20–872), P = 0.034]. In the subgroup of patients on ineffective empirical antibiotic, time to effective antibiotic was shorter in the rapid group [39.5 h (32–97) versus 57 h (49–83), P = 0.036]. No differences were found in 28 day mortality or length of stay.

Conclusions

Rapid susceptibility testing resulted in faster discontinuation of aminoglycosides and a shorter time to starting effective and optimal antibiotic when compared with conventional AST results. rAST has potential clinical benefits and points to the need for larger future studies in areas of high antibiotic resistance.

Utility and applicability of rapid diagnostic testing in antimicrobial stewardship in Asia Pacific: A Delphi consensus

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) facilitate fast and accurate identification of infectious disease microorganisms and are a valuable component of multimodal antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs but are currently underutilized in the Asia-Pacific region. An experienced group of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and a clinical pharmacist used a modified Delphi consensus approach to construct 10 statements, aiming to optimize the utility and applicability of infection-related RDTs for AMS in the Asia-Pacific region. They provide guidance on definition, types, optimal deployment, measuring effectiveness, and overcoming key challenges. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was applied to indicate the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the underlying evidence. Given the diversity of the Asia-Pacific region, the trajectory of RDT development will vary widely; the collection of local data should be prioritized to allow realization and optimization of the full benefits of RDTs in AMS.

Multidrug-resistant, gram-negative infections in high-risk haematologic patients: an update on epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (MDR-GNB) infections are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in high-risk hematologic patients. Early diagnosis and management of antibiotic treatment in these patients is a challenge for physicians. This review focuses on the latest literature reports that concern the epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of MDR-GNB infections in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

High-risk haematological patients have several risk factors that make them particularly susceptible to MDR-GNB infections. Few studies have examined the implementation of rapid diagnostic methods for multidrug resistance, and their impact on management in this population. Inappropriate empiric antibiotic treatment in these patients has been described frequently and is associated with poor outcomes.

SUMMARY

Knowledge of the local epidemiology of MDR-GNB is a basic requirement to guide empiric antibiotic treatments in each centre. New diagnosic tests might help in faster identification of MDR-GNB infections. Appropriate empiric antibiotic treatment is crucial for improving patients' prognosis. Important strategies to reduce inadequate antibiotic treatment include better risk stratification for MDR-GNB infection and the introduction of new, more broad-spectrum antibiotic therapies.

Improving outcomes and antibiotic stewardship (IOAS) for patients with Gram-positive bloodstream infections through use of rapid testing: a quasi-experimental multicentre study of the Accelerate PhenoTest™ BC Kit

BACKGROUND

Data from the Improving Outcomes and Antibiotic Stewardship for Patients with Bloodstream Infections: Accelerate PhenoTest™ BC Kit (AXDX) Registry Study were analysed to determine the impact of rapid organism identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) for Gram-positive bacteraemia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multicentre, quasi-experimental study evaluated clinical and antimicrobial stewardship metrics following the implementation of AXDX. Data from hospitalized patients with bacteraemia were compared between groups, one that underwent testing on AXDX (post-AXDX) and one that underwent traditional identification and AST (pre-AXDX). An analysis of patients with Gram-positive bacteraemia was performed. The primary outcome was time to optimal therapy (TTOT). Secondary outcomes included time to first antibiotic modification (overall and Gram-positive), duration of unnecessary MRSA coverage, incidence of adverse events, length of stay and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 219 (109 pre-AXDX, 110 post-AXDX) patients with Gram-positive bacteraemia were included. Median TTOT was 36.3 h (IQR, 16.9-56.7) in the pre-AXDX group and 20.4 h (IQR, 7.5-36.7) in the post-AXDX group (P = 0.01). Compared with pre-AXDX, median time to first antibiotic modification (29.1 versus 15.9 h; P = 0.002), time to first Gram-positive antibiotic modification (33.2 versus 17.2 h; P = 0.003) and median duration of unnecessary MRSA coverage (58.4 versus 29.7 h; P = 0.04) were reduced post-AXDX. A trend towards decreased acute kidney injury (24% versus 13%; P = 0.06) was observed in the post-AXDX group. Groups did not differ in other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of AXDX testing for patients with Gram-positive bacteraemia shortened the TTOT and reduced unnecessary antibiotic exposure due to faster antibiotic modifications.

Rapid versus standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide treatment of bloodstream infection

BACKGROUND

Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility tests are expected to reduce the time to clinically important results of a blood culture. This might enable clinicians to better target therapy to a person's needs, and thereby, improve health outcomes (mortality, length of hospital stay), and reduce unnecessary prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics; thereby reducing antimicrobial resistance rates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of rapid susceptibility testing versus standard susceptibility testing for bloodstream infections (BSIs).

SEARCH METHODS

To identify studies with selected outcomes, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, and two trials registries, between 1987 and October 2020. We used 'bloodstream infection' and 'antimicrobial susceptibility tests' as search terms. We had no language or publication status limitations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (with a time-to-result of ≤ 8 hours) versus conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in people with a BSI caused by any bacteria, as identified by a positive blood culture.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references, full-text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. For mortality, a dichotomous outcome, we extracted the number of events in each arm, and presented a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to compare rapid susceptibility testing to conventional methods. We used Review Manager 5.4 to meta-analyse the data. For other outcomes, which are time-to-event outcomes (time-to-discharge from hospital, time-to-first appropriate antibiotic change), we conducted qualitative narrative synthesis, due to heterogeneity of outcome measures.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials, with 1638 participants. For rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.46; 6 RCTs, 1638 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, for rapid genotypic or molecular antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.49; 4 RCTs, 1074 participants; low-certainty evidence). For phenotypic rapid susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups  (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.35; 2 RCTs, 564 participants; low-certainty evidence). In qualitative analysis, rapid susceptibility testing may make little or no difference in time-to-discharge (4 RCTs, 1165 participants; low-certainty evidence). In qualitative analysis, rapid genotypic susceptibility testing compared to conventional testing may make little or no difference in time-to-appropriate antibiotic (3 RCTs, 929 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, rapid phenotypic susceptibility testing compared to conventional testing may improve time-to-appropriate antibiotic (RR -17.29, CI -45.05 to 10.47; 2 RCTs, 564 participants; low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The theoretical benefits of rapid susceptibility testing have not been demonstrated to directly improve mortality, time-to-discharge, or time-to-appropriate antibiotic in these randomized studies. Future large prospective studies should be designed to focus on the most clinically meaningful outcomes, and aim to optimize blood culture pathways.

Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods for Blood Cultures and Their Clinical Impact

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of bacteria isolated in blood cultures is critical for optimal management of patients with sepsis. This review describes new and emerging phenotypic and genotypic AST methods and summarizes the evidence that implementation of these methods can impact clinical outcomes of patients with bloodstream infections.

A Direct Rapid Phenotypic Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Enables Early Selection of Optimal Antibiotics to Treat Bacteremia in COVID-19 Patients

Background

Co-infection with bacteria and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may result in greater use of healthcare resources and a poor prognosis. Therefore, early selection and use of optimal antibiotics are essential. The direct rapid antibiotic susceptibility test (dRAST) can detect antibiotic resistance within 6 h of a Gram smear result. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of dRAST for improving early selection of appropriate antibiotics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with bacteremia.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study included 96 blood culture-positive COVID-19 patients. Bacterial isolates and antimicrobial resistance profiles of each case were evaluated. Cases were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent conventional antibiotic susceptibility test (AST) or dRAST. The time to optimal targeted treatment for the two groups was investigated and compared. In addition, we examined the proportion of cases for which appropriate antibiotics were selected and broad spectrum antibiotics were administered at 72 h from blood sample collection.

Results

The mean time to optimal targeted antibiotic treatment was shorter for the dRAST group [55.7; standard deviation (SD), 28.7 vs. 92.3; SD, 51.1 h; P = 0.041]. The proportion of cases receiving optimal targeted antibiotics 72 h after blood collection for culture was higher [6/10 (60.0%) vs. 10/25 (40.0%)] and the percentage receiving broad spectrum antibiotics at 72 h was lower [6/10 (60.0%) vs. 19/25 (76.0%)] in the dRAST group than in the conventional AST group. In terms of microbiology profile, the contamination rate was high (35.5%) and multidrug-resistant strains were common (63.2%) in COVID-19 patients with bacteremia.

Conclusion

Application of dRAST for selection of antibiotics to treat bacteremia in COVID-19 patients may enable earlier and optimal treatment. The high incidence of contamination and resistant organisms in blood cultures from COVID-19 patients suggest that dRAST may speed up appropriate targeted treatment.